2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

No mention of his proposed tax on financial transactions of the Wall Street variety. At a fraction of the rate of existing sales taxes (which it would be analogous to), that alone would help significantly in funding such things as university tuition. In the hypothetical future world where such things became law.

There is absolutely nothing about this plan that is a good idea. It's strictly pandering to anti-Wall Street anxiety. At the very least, the tax on trades is strictly more harmful than an increase on tax rates for all income at a certain level.

I do think the education needs to be better-funded in this country, though, and I'm not against raising taxes to do it. BUT, I think that making public universities free is a ridiculous place to allocate increased education dollars. First of all, most public universities aren't really what's contributions to massive debt problems, being relatively affordable. (I'm looking at you, small liberal arts schools and for-profit degree mills.) Second of all, this would be a fairly regressive way to spend money. Where it really should be spent is on K-12 education in low-income communities, not buying the votes of white college-age Bernie Bros from relatively well-off families (okay, sorry, stereotyping a bit off of what I see at UT).

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by digitize

There is absolutely nothing about this plan that is a good idea. It's strictly pandering to anti-Wall Street anxiety. At the very least, the tax on trades is strictly more harmful than an increase on tax rates for all income at a certain level.

Really? A tax of maybe max. 1% (or less) or so on certain financial transactions is that harmful?

I do think the education needs to be better-funded in this country, though, and I'm not against raising taxes to do it. BUT, I think that making public universities free is a ridiculous place to allocate increased education dollars. First of all, most public universities aren't really what's contributions to massive debt problems, being relatively affordable. (I'm looking at you, small liberal arts schools and for-profit degree mills.) Second of all, this would be a fairly regressive way to spend money. Where it really should be spent is on K-12 education in low-income communities, not buying the votes of white college-age Bernie Bros from relatively well-off families (okay, sorry, stereotyping a bit off of what I see at UT).

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I wonder if at this point the useful parts of university education (ie. not mere credentialism, diploma-for-the-wall stuff) should properly be considered an essential along with the grade 1-12 primary and secondary education. My own experience, many years gone now and in a different country, is that at least the first year of a typical undergraduate course would have been better off treated as a sort of high school 'grade 13' and made available to everyone on the same basis as high school already is. I'm drifting a little here, off the topic.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Really? A tax of maybe max. 1% (or less) or so on certain financial transactions is that harmful?







I wonder if at this point the useful parts of university education (ie. not mere credentialism, diploma-for-the-wall stuff) should properly be considered an essential along with the grade 1-12 primary and secondary education. My own experience, many years gone now and in a different country, is that at least the first year of a typical undergraduate course would have been better off treated as a sort of high school 'grade 13' and made available to everyone on the same basis as high school already is. I'm drifting a little here, off the topic.

Re: tax - yes, certainly harmful. There's no such thing as a free lunch. 1% is terrifyingly huge, so I hope it's smaller than that. But it would come with reduced liquidity across the board, reduced money in investment accounts for the rich and poor, increased bid/ask spreads, etc., none of which is true. You can say that this disproportionately affects the rich, which is true, but there absolutely no good reason to then not just levy the tax on the entirety of the high-income-earning population instead of concentrating it in financial services. And concentrating it here also affects non-rich savers, pension funds, etc., which are already doing fairly terribly at the moment. Of course, no tax (ceteris paribus) has good economic effects, but it's much better to spread the impact of necessary taxes broadly than to concentrate them arbitrarily. This is just a way to feast off of anti-Wall Street sentiment... and, I suppose, to tax normal savers without letting them realize that.

Re: education - yes, a bachelor's degree is increasingly necessary. It also still has a highly positive return on investment in most cases, without being free. The thing that deters people from going to college is awful K-12 education. It would take a lot more K-12 funding there to convince me that putting the marginal dollar into paying for getting rid of public university tuition is a better idea than giving it to low-income K-12 districts.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by deep

China defense planning includes losing 30 per cent of their population as they ramp up eventually win the war. It's a good plan.

I guarantee you no nation's war plan in the history of humanity has ever involved losing 30% their population.

[BigMacPhisto]

Sanders now ahead of Clinton in the latest Wisconsin polls. Should have no problem winning there although he needs to make it a big enough win. Barely winning, or worse, losing means it's the end of the road as there's no way in hell he would succeed in states like New York or Pennsylvania if he loses Wisconsin. A defeat in Wisconsin effectively closes his small window at winning a pledged delegate majority to a 0% chance.

Meanwhile, he is quickly pulling in on Clinton's numbers in New York which doesn't even vote for another two weeks. Sizable wins in New York and Wisconsin would quickly make the delegate math not so troubling for the guy as he's only some 92 delegates behind the benchmarks that 538 has set for him to win the majority of pledged delegates. Exceeding the benchmarks in Wisconsin and New York by a good margin could really close that gap.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by deep

you can stop right there and add, and a decent chance to pick up? the senate (that will advise and consent)

I don't even think about the Democrats picking up the Senate because I view it as an absolute given. The Republicans have to defend so many damn seats that they won in 2010 when nobody voted...the only real struggle for Dems is that they gave up too many damn seats in the 2014 elections that they now need to win a lot more to win it all back...but I think it's totally doable, and with a shitty Republican nominee hurting everyone down-ballot, it might even be a cake walk.

But the House? I mean, holy hell, even the out-of-touch Clinton campaign gave up on that pipe dream forever ago. We're stuck with Republican obstructionism until at least after the next census.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by deep

a tax pal? is this a socialist concept?

my commie fingers are not so accurate.

[LuckyNumber7]

Speaking of college and affordability...

Not only is tuition skyrocketing past inflation, but holy hell try getting a loan these days. I'm in the process of applying for a federal loan. My sister was telling me about her loan rates etc. in the late 90s/early 2000s... getting a government loan back then used to mean something. Now, you're pretty much getting a private loan, with Uncle Sam's name on it.

Not only do I need almost twice the amount in a loan that she did over the same period, but I have to pay it back under much shittier conditions.

[deep]

Nobody is making you borrow it.

[deep]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

I don't even think about the Democrats picking up the Senate because I view it as an absolute given. The Republicans have to defend so many damn seats that they won in 2010 when nobody voted...the only real struggle for Dems is that they gave up too many damn seats in the 2014 elections that they now need to win a lot more to win it all back...but I think it's totally doable, and with a shitty Republican nominee hurting everyone down-ballot, it might even be a cake walk.

But the House? I mean, holy hell, even the out-of-touch Clinton campaign gave up on that pipe dream forever ago. We're stuck with Republican obstructionism until at least after the next census.

Census won't matter that much Dems are too stupid to get the govnorships and legislators to control the gerrymandering.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by deep

Nobody is making you borrow it.

Keep your ignorant and pompous garbage to yourself.

[Mack_Again]

what are you doing, deep?

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

what are you doing, deep?

Providing us with deep thoughts.

[BVS]

So has he announced it yet?! I'm giddy!!!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

In my opinion, the only April fools on this day are in Congress.

[DaveC]

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

In my opinion, the only April fools on this day are in Congress.

especially the one in North Carolina, right?

[BVS]

Apparently there's an open letter from a former Trump aid that basically says what many of us expected; the plan was never for him to get this far but his ego has taken over. How much of an actual "insider" is now in question but her assessment, though it took her too long, is spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BEAL]

We've heard this a few times though. Not disputing it, but seems like it would make bigger news than it does.

The bigger joke is on us for allowing it to get to this point. Though one could argue that it just shows the need for a change in politics.

Just not this extreme

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by deep

Census won't matter that much Dems are too stupid to get the govnorships and legislators to control the gerrymandering.

Those should be controlled mostly by people elected in mid-term and off-year elections in 2018 and 2019, so you're probably right. At least the tide will have shifted a bit with ten more years of Republicans dying off...

I find it baffling that there's so many states that vote for their state-wide candidates in mid-term and, especially, off-year elections. It's like the entire friggin' process is gamed so that Republicans can hold onto power for as long as possible. The fair way would be a single election every four years. Senate and House terms are four years, state-wide seats are four years, Governorships are four years...we'd have blue control all over this country. You'd have to be a total idiot to think that people voting in some state's odd year election where turnout is 18% has any bearing on public sentiment.