Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread


JohnnyU

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, and it’s disproportionately the poor who never went to college. I understand (extremely well) that student loans are burdensome and unpleasant. I don’t understand why we’d want to transfer money to people with student loans before we transfer money to people without homes. I mean, I understand politically — it’s because college grads as a group have more political clout than the homeless do. But aside from that, I don’t think forgiving student loans should be a top priority.

Because people with student loans are disproportionately likely to be capable of starting a business, injecting capital, taxes, jobs, and innovation into the marketplace, and/or earning large enough salaries to spend money in the service and luxury economy spaces that the U.S. economy thrives in while simultaneously being unable to do those things because of massive student loan debt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Medicare for All seems popular in part because Medicare seems popular. Social Security also seems popular.

Andrew Yang is trying to popularize support for a Basic Income Guarantee by calling it a “Freedom Dividend,” which seems ham-fisted.

Why don’t we instead start calling it “Social Security for All”?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Because people with student loans are disproportionately likely to be capable of starting a business, injecting capital, taxes, jobs, and innovation into the marketplace, and/or earning large enough salaries to spend money in the service and luxury economy spaces that the U.S. economy thrives in while simultaneously being unable to do those things because of massive student loan debt. 

So, trickle-down?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

By the way, Medicare for All seems popular in part because Medicare seems popular. Social Security also seems popular.

Andrew Yang is trying to popularize support for a Basic Income Guarantee by calling it a “Freedom Divident,” which seems ham-fisted.

Why don’t we instead start calling it “Social Security for All”?

The recent (may have been months ago) Freakonomics podcast with him was an interesting listen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

So, trickle-down?

I don't believe any part of what I posted stated that the benefits would trickle down to anyone else.  The U.S. is an economic engine.  Educated people with discretionary income and the freedom to quit their jobs are the oil.  That's all.

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Yes, that part. The notion that it’s unfair X person gets something that Y person has paid more for.  

I know you said you’re for it, but I imagine the primary argument against will be what you said

 

14 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I agree it isn't a shocker that people feel that way.  I'm not saying it's "controversial" that you acknowledge that, I'm just saying we've gone so far afield from "the only reason to look into your neighbor's bowl is to make certain he has enough" that we may never find our way back.

Yep, and that's why I proposed maybe letting those folks who didn't go and maybe for folks who did go we could create a voucher system that would allow their children or grandchildren to go.  Something to "soften the blow" - either way, I'm on board.  I paid that money back because I owed it - it's over and one with - I hope I'm smart enough to realize that and don't let it impact my "vote" on whether it's a good idea or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

 

Yep, and that's why I proposed maybe letting those folks who didn't go and maybe for folks who did go we could create a voucher system that would allow their children or grandchildren to go.  Something to "soften the blow" - either way, I'm on board.  I paid that money back because I owed it - it's over and one with - I hope I'm smart enough to realize that and don't let it impact my "vote" on whether it's a good idea or not.

Yay!  Another benefit for people who have children!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, and it’s disproportionately the poor who never went to college. I understand (extremely well) that student loans are burdensome and unpleasant. I don’t understand why we’d want to transfer money to people with student loans before we transfer money to people without homes. I mean, I understand politically — it’s because college grads as a group have more political clout than the homeless do. But aside from that, I don’t think forgiving student loans should be a top priority.

I've often wondered why we don't have more homeless shelters and places where folks who lose their homes can stay - seems like for a fraction of what we increase our defense budget we could take care of these folks.  Are we so worried that people will become lazy or game the system that we can't do this?  Seems crazy to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I don't believe any part of what I posted stated that the benefits would trickle down to anyone else.  The U.S. is an economic engine.  People with discretionary income and the freedom to quit their jobs are the oil.  That's all.

A BIG and a CanadaCare would do boatloads for entrepreneurism in this country. 

I haven't really thought about where to place free college into the spectrum but that may be because I think college credentialism is going to seriously change in the years to come. And if one were to ask me to expand on that, I would probably do a very poor job of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, and it’s disproportionately the poor who never went to college. I understand (extremely well) that student loans are burdensome and unpleasant. I don’t understand why we’d want to transfer money to people with student loans before we transfer money to people without homes. I mean, I understand politically — it’s because college grads as a group have more political clout than the homeless do. But aside from that, I don’t think forgiving student loans should be a top priority.

Why limit this concept to college?  Expand it to vocational education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Having kids is about the only thing I'm good at and I'm not even as good at it as @General Malaise

While I don't mind paying for schools, after school programs, before school programs, meals for kids at school, Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Child Care, Section 8, Child Protective Services, Youth Courts, the Child Tax Credit, and all the other programs for people with kids, I would like there to be some sort of program some day that I can use.  Maybe next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

While I don't mind paying for schools, after school programs, before school programs, meals for kids at school, Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Child Care, Section 8, Child Protective Services, Youth Courts, the Child Tax Credit, and all the other programs for people with kids, I would like there to be some sort of program some day that I can use.  Maybe next time.

GM would probably let you adopt a few of his kids.  WALA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

While I don't mind paying for schools, after school programs, before school programs, meals for kids at school, Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Child Care, Section 8, Child Protective Services, Youth Courts, the Child Tax Credit, and all the other programs for people with kids, I would like there to be some sort of program some day that I can use.  Maybe next time.

Social Security for AllTM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my personal reasoning for canceling student loans over and above all of the other proposed ideas, in a nutshell: college graduates buy homes. Home sales are the engine that drives our economy. So if you relieve these people from having to pay their debts, they will invest in homes and drive up the economy. Simple as that. 

You want to call it a form of trickle down? OK I guess so. But unlike the conservative formula of always giving the break to the wealthy, this time we give it to the middle class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Maybe that's something we also need to change.

Why? 

Home ownership represents stability. It’s still the model for most people: you buy a home in a good neighborhood, you send your kids to good schools, you’re part of a community. 

It’s certainly bourgeois and it’s not for everyone, but it’s the source of decades of prosperity. Why should we want to change the formula? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

Why? 

Home ownership represents stability. It’s still the model for most people: you buy a home in a good neighborhood, you send your kids to good schools, you’re part of a community. 

It’s certainly bourgeois and it’s not for everyone, but it’s the source of decades of prosperity. Why should we want to change the formula? 

Decades of prosperity for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Here is my personal reasoning for canceling student loans over and above all of the other proposed ideas, in a nutshell: college graduates buy homes. Home sales are the engine that drives our economy. So if you relieve these people from having to pay their debts, they will invest in homes and drive up the economy. Simple as that. 

You want to call it a form of trickle down? OK I guess so. But unlike the conservative formula of always giving the break to the wealthy, this time we give it to the middle class. 

I'm not persuaded by this reasoning. I doubt that the total quantity of homes will increase much just because we extinguish student loan debt so that people have more money to buy homes with. I suspect that the main effect on the housing market will be not to increase the quantity of homes, but to instead increase the prices of homes. We'd be swapping student debt for more mortgage debt. I don't see how that's better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm not persuaded by this reasoning. I doubt that the total quantity of homes will increase much just because we extinguish student loan debt so that people have more money to buy homes with. I suspect that the main affect on the housing market will be not to increase the quantity of homes, but to instead increase the prices of homes. We'd be swapping student debt for more mortgage debt. I don't see how that's better.

Yeah, but when has mortgage debt ever caused any economic problems?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Make it either refundable or tradable.  Or both.  Every dollar you pay off is a dollar off your tax burden.  Not sure what else to tell.

So if you have, say, 50,000 in student loans.... and you pay $500 towards them in calendar 2018, on your 2019 tax return you get credit for 500 off the top?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

So if you have, say, 50,000 in student loans.... and you pay $500 towards them in calendar 2018, on your 2019 tax return you get credit for 500 off the top?

Yup.

It should also be used to reduce student loan interest.  If payments became a dollar for dollar tax credit, there would be a substantially lower number of loan defaults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Because people with student loans are disproportionately likely to be capable of starting a business, injecting capital, taxes, jobs, and innovation into the marketplace, and/or earning large enough salaries to spend money in the service and luxury economy spaces that the U.S. economy thrives in while simultaneously being unable to do those things because of massive student loan debt. 

Does this plan only cover existing student loans?  What about going forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/14/republicans-are-trolling-green-new-deal-heres-how-democrats-will-troll-them-back/

 

This could go here - or the Climate thread - but as many of you know, the GOP will be bringing the Green New Deal up for vote in the Senate, in the hopes of embarrassing 2020 presidential candidates.

This article outlines what I hope is the Dems plan in response:

Republicans are gleeful about the Green New Deal, which they see as a major political liability for Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is planning a vote on the GND on the theory that any Senate Democrat — a field that includes several 2020 presidential hopefuls — who votes for it will self-immolate on the spot.

Many commentators have scowled in agreement with McConnell’s theory. But what’s discussed far less often is the politics of the big-picture contrast that forms the backdrop of this debate: one pitting a Democratic Party that recognizes the scale of the global warming challenge and wants to do something about it, and a Republican Party that simply does not.

Democrats now hope to change that.

On Thursday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will deliver a speech on the GND on the Senate floor, in which the minority leader will call on Republicans to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat and is largely human-created, and to pledge that Congress will act to address it, according to a source familiar with his plan.

 

I think this debate and vote will backfire spectacularly on the GOP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How this will play out is all pretty predictable.  Schumer will try to frame the issue as a broad, general recognition that we need to do something about climate change with details to be developed later.  Republicans, on the other hand, will read aloud from AOC's FAQ on the Senate floor, turning the discussion toward income support for people unwilling to work, high speed rail, and farting cows.  You can't blame Schumer for trying to do some damage control here -- he's playing the hand he was dealt -- but AOC really handed the Republicans a gift here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think this debate and vote will backfire spectacularly on the GOP. 

I doubt it. You are making the mistake of looking at it through your eyes. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of somebody that can be influenced by the charade. 

The tv ads that would be played are fairly predictable. "Candidate x voted to eliminate air travel and declared war on cows"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I doubt it. You are making the mistake of looking at it through your eyes. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of somebody that can be influenced by the charade. 

The tv ads that would be played are fairly predictable. "Candidate x voted to eliminate air travel and declared war on cows"

"Candidate R denies climate change!"

:shrug:

 

Candidate X will spin this as "Climate change is real, and is the biggest threat facing the world today.  We need a bold vision, and leaders who will plot the course along way.  Tomorrow is too late, the time to be bold is today."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I doubt it. You are making the mistake of looking at it through your eyes. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of somebody that can be influenced by the charade. 

The tv ads that would be played are fairly predictable. "Candidate x voted to eliminate air travel and declared war on cows"

Are you suggesting that Republicans won't run ridiculously dishonest ads that unfairly disparage Dems for their words and actions unless the Dems vote to support the Green New Deal?

If so, a counterpoint:

[gestures at basically everything the Republican party has said and done over the last three years]

 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Why? 

Home ownership represents stability. It’s still the model for most people: you buy a home in a good neighborhood, you send your kids to good schools, you’re part of a community. 

It’s certainly bourgeois and it’s not for everyone, but it’s the source of decades of prosperity. Why should we want to change the formula? 

It also represents a debt-fueled economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How this will play out is all pretty predictable.  Schumer will try to frame the issue as a broad, general recognition that we need to do something about climate change with details to be developed later.  Republicans, on the other hand, will read aloud from AOC's FAQ on the Senate floor, turning the discussion toward income support for people unwilling to work, high speed rail, and farting cows.  You can't blame Schumer for trying to do some damage control here -- he's playing the hand he was dealt -- but AOC really handed the Republicans a gift here. 

 

43 minutes ago, jonessed said:

The GOP thanks you.

I am amused and somewhat bewildered by this notion that the GOP would not run ridiculous mischaracterizations of Democrat actions and positions were it not for AOC's FAQ about the Green New Deal and a potential vote. They elected a freaking birther as President of the United States, for Christ's sake. A guy whose central campaign message was that he was gonna build an impossible wall and get a foreign country to pay for it while imprisoning his political opponent for unspecified crimes pursuant to an unexplained process. These are not people who are bound by pesky things like "truthfulness" and "evidentiary support" and "basic human decency."

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm not persuaded by this reasoning. I doubt that the total quantity of homes will increase much just because we extinguish student loan debt so that people have more money to buy homes with. I suspect that the main effect on the housing market will be not to increase the quantity of homes, but to instead increase the prices of homes. We'd be swapping student debt for more mortgage debt. I don't see how that's better.

I think the quantity of homes would increase, so that’s probably the basis of our disagreement on how this would work out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote earlier that the best way out of this trap would be for the Democrats to vote no as a unified group, arguing that it’s a political stunt. 

Instead it sounds like most will vote for it, some will vote against (as if it’s a serious measure to be considered) while the base pays attention and castigates anybody opposed. While this might still backfire on the Republicans (you never know in politics) it sure feels like the Democrats are falling deeper and deeper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I wrote earlier that the best way out of this trap would be for the Democrats to vote no as a unified group, arguing that it’s a political stunt. 

Instead it sounds like most will vote for it, some will vote against (as if it’s a serious measure to be considered) while the base pays attention and castigates anybody opposed. While this might still backfire on the Republicans (you never know in politics) it sure feels like the Democrats are falling deeper and deeper. 

I think this will backfire spectacularly on Republicans as they all become forever branded as cow-fart lovers. (Ew.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

 

I am amused and somewhat bewildered by this notion that the GOP would not run ridiculous mischaracterizations of Democrat actions and positions were it not for AOC's FAQ about the Green New Deal and a potential vote. They elected a freaking birther as President of the United States, for Christ's sake. A guy whose central campaign message was that he was gonna build an impossible wall and get a foreign country to pay for it while imprisoning his political opponent for unspecified crimes pursuant to an unexplained process. These are not people who are bound by pesky things like "truthfulness" and "evidentiary support" and "basic human decency."

True, but thanks to AOC they don't have to resort to ridiculous mischaracterizations.  They can just quote her own policy paper.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When climate change is the topic of discussion, Democrats win with the general public, because Republicans seem unreasonable. 

But my concern is that when the New Green Deal is the topic of discussion, Republicans will win because Democrats seem unreasonable. I’m not sure this will be the case. But it very well might. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is the problem. 

It's only a problem if you let the GOP dictate what issues the Democrats support.

I refuse to let them dictate my vote.

If we wait until the GOP is on board with climate change to do anything about it, we might as well just kiss the earth goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...