What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Handyman said:
To even discuss such a plan you would need to first cut quite a bit from the budget
Click to expand...

No, this is the neoliberal austerity myth. Krugman has been hammering away at this for a decade. It's simply not true.

The money's there, we just don't collect it. We can afford everything we're spending on now and then some if we simply go back to the tax rates we had prior to the heists. We may not even have to claw back, though obviously from a moral point of view we ought to.

The systemic issue with US debt is revenue, not spending. The Club for Growth and Pete Peterson et al have simply been trumpeting the contrary lie in order to execute their Two Santa Clauses operation and destroy progressive taxation and a just state. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for every mathematically and economically literate person in America.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
Just make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy like every other loan out there. That's a decent chunk of the problem.

And funny how the moral hazard doesn't apply to the banks or other corporate entities who get bailed out.
Click to expand...

Since this makes them “risk free” the interest should be very very low... like fed discount rate low. No chance of default.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

I had a post queued up to reply to handy but basically this has been researched and it’s not only possible, but the economic outcome is actually more good than bad because it’d free up a ton of money for starting new businesses and just buying things in general (the biggest component of GDP). Long story short his economic adviser wrote a 72 page research paper about it and it’d do far more good than harm and actually create a surplus in the end even if it costs a lot up front (but again, this cost isn’t impossible, it’s the same amount as the tax cuts that just happened and it’d actually pay for itself in the end and then some). And yeah it’s probably not possible with the current congressional makeup but nobody can predict what it will be in the future especially with (theoretically) a more progressive president.

As for the comparison to TARP it’s really not applicable because that was solely about damage control for a crash that already happened.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Kepler said:
No, this is the neoliberal austerity myth. Krugman has been hammering away at this for a decade. It's simply not true.

The money's there, we just don't collect it. We can afford everything we're spending on now and then some if we simply go back to the tax rates we had prior to the heists. We may not even have to claw back, though obviously from a moral point of view we ought to.

The systemic issue with US debt is revenue, not spending. The Club for Growth and Pete Peterson et al have simply been trumpeting the contrary lie in order to execute their Two Santa Clauses operation and destroy progressive taxation and a just state. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for every mathematically and economically literate person in America.
Click to expand...

Our debt is ridiculous. We can stop the bleeding by raising taxes but the budget needs to be cut. There is no reason we spend what we spend and you know it. Hell if we cut the military budget by a third we could fund a lot of the stuff needed and STILL destroy every other military out there.

You need to plan ahead, you cant just raise taxes and spend it all because that will bite you in the ***. (no matter what Krugman says) You raise taxes AND cut spending and you not only fund everything but you save for a rainy day.

I am sure you arent biased in any way though what with your job and the job Dr. Mrs. has ;)
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

joecct said:
Slava Does America

https://www.slavadoesamerica.com
Click to expand...

Bernie (credo: “I will ignore the bull**** premise of your question, because this armored vehicle in front of the Romanov Winter Palace that I am standing on is a little loud”)

...I envision quite a lot of Americans gasped at his frank admission that they will pay more in taxes and screamed that this crazy old commie will wrench their $8000 emergency-room bill out of their cold dead hands.
Click to expand...

I LOL'd.

Then I cried a bit. Because he's right.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

trixR4kids said:
I had a post queued up to reply to handy but basically this has been researched and it’s not only possible, but the economic outcome is actually more good than bad because it’d free up a ton of money for starting new businesses and just buying things in general (the biggest component of GDP). Long story short his economic adviser wrote a 72 page research paper about it and it’d do far more good than harm and actually create a surplus in the end even if it costs a lot up front (but again, this cost isn’t impossible, it’s the same amount as the tax cuts that just happened and it’d actually pay for itself in the end and then some). And yeah it’s probably not possible with the current congressional makeup but nobody can predict what it will be in the future especially with (theoretically) a more progressive president.

As for the comparison to TARP it’s really not applicable because that was solely about damage control for a crash that already happened.
Click to expand...

Long term the plan is great...we dont live in the long term though and you know it. If there is even a short term slow down because of the plan you would have to be blind to not see how bad that would be for the Democrats. That is the problem, you are risking political power for something that MAYBE a decade later will show any real positive impact. You have to remember these arent being done in a vacuum this is the real world and there will be consequences. That is why I asked if it is worth it, and why I dont know.

And sorry but I dont buy that the Government buying up $1.6 trillion dollars (the current number) worth of debt and wiping it out (cause it is never getting recouped) is not going to have more than just a small impact. That is a LOT of debt for the Government to take on at once. I am not saying it isnt possible but I will need more than some research paper (no offense seriously) to prove it. This is something that is going to need to be studied from every angle before we do it. I wont lie, from a fiscal standpoint I would rather a slight tax raise (or sunset) went along with it so that way the Government so I do see what you are saying. I also would probably feel more comfortable (and many other people I bet) with the idea if it was tiered. Spread it out over 4-5 years or something. I am all for socializing the losses but I also want the impact to be less painful.

See what I worry about is this, I am on board for most if not all of these ideas. I love them, hell they benefit me as much as they benefit anyone else. But I also know if we want america to be the best version of itself we need Progressive Ideas in power for more than 4 or 8 years. You blow your wad on the wrong idea and it will kill your momentum. I dont want to have Bernie win, do everything right for 4-8 years then have the fallout from that being some clown like Marco Rubio taking over and wiping it all away. I am not advocating not doing the right thing, I am just saying make sure we make the right moves in the right time so it doesnt bite us at the worst time. (which is how it seems to work with Democrats) You play the game right you dont need to drag them kicking and screaming to the 21st Century...things change and they are too oblivious to even notice.

So, and I mean this sincerely, I am not disagreeing with you because I dont want to ultimately make this work. I am disagreeing because I dont want to trade 1 Progressive Idea for a whole agenda. I want to do whatever we have to to bring America back to sanity so I am going to be cautious on stuff like this. Too many other things are important to me than this at the moment. You know what I mean?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Eating all of the student debt in this country at once would have a serious economic impact. And not a positive one, IMO.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

You wouldn’t necessarily do it all in one shot, there’s various ways to accomplish it and it’s not like there isn’t historical precedent for spending of this magnitude (during the Great Depression no less).

But I also know if we want america to be the best version of itself we need Progressive Ideas in power for more than 4 or 8 years.
Click to expand...
Agreed but you need to start somewhere. It doesn’t necessarily have to be this exact program but it’s a goal to strive for.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

@daveweigel: Bernie: "Our campaign slogan is us, not me. What do you think that means?”

Dude in crowd: “Workers of the world, unite.”
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

joecct said:
@daveweigel: Bernie: "Our campaign slogan is us, not me. What do you think that means?”

Dude in crowd: “Workers of the world, unite.”
Click to expand...

Look, you gotta admit, it is the greatest political slogan in history. Brief, precise, stirring. It beats "I am a pastry."

We have the best slogan and the best song. We've just been a little loose on the execution* so far.

* Term used advisedly
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

No offense to Sanders and his supporters but once again Warren has the superior plan. A comparison:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammi...-loan-forgiveness-plans-compare/#3adca32718c4

There's no point in cancelling the debt for doctors and lawyers and hedge fund managers if they're all making huge bucks. I get that in socialism everybody's equal and treated the same, but we have to be mindful of the politics too. Warren's wealth tax funds the program and then some. It transfers the benefit from the super rich to the average joe and jane trying to better themselves. Its high time Sanders drops out and throws his support behind Lizzy.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

aparch said:
CNN Exclusive: Joe Biden, in last ditch effort to remain relevant, claims Democrats like AOC aren't the future of the party.

It's so cute to see Biden grasping at straws. 2016 was his chance, he blew it, move on.
Click to expand...

I'm all for Joe making the race because it gives a voice to his old timey Dems. If he wasn't there Russian bots would be going crazy saying the entire field was lefies and nobody's speaking to his working class union type Dems. So, when he loses the nomination to Lizzy Warren (or Harris, etc) I expect Biden to do the right thing and give her his full support and then campaign on her behalf in the places where he's popular.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

aparch said:
CNN Exclusive: Joe Biden, in last ditch effort to remain relevant, claims Democrats like AOC aren't the future of the party.

It's so cute to see Biden grasping at straws. 2016 was his chance, he blew it, move on.
Click to expand...

Of all the candidates running, I find Biden to be the most disappointing. Not so much because of whatever he is pushing, but because I expected him to be better in a lot of ways. Very uninspired so far. He's also been playing defense since he announced. I don't like my hockey team to do it when we're up 2-1 5 minutes into the second period and I think when candidates play "not to lose" they generally are toast. He's the 2020 version of Jeb Bush.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Rover said:
If he wasn't there Russian bots would be going crazy saying the entire field was lefies and nobody's speaking to his working class union type Dems.
Click to expand...

They're gonna do that anyway, and they've already started harping on the "Creepy Uncle Joe" thing. There's a bit for all of them that the botskis can hammer away at.

Harris loves cops and isn't really black
Booker is a corporate shill and isn't really black
Warren benefited from claiming she had Native blood
Buttigieg is gay and a small-timer who lacks experience
Castro wants open borders and free healthcare for illegals
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

WeAreNDHockey said:
Of all the candidates running, I find Biden to be the most disappointing. Not so much because of whatever he is pushing, but because I expected him to be better in a lot of ways. Very uninspired so far. He's also been playing defense since he announced. I don't like my hockey team to do it when we're up 2-1 5 minutes into the second period and I think when candidates play "not to lose" they generally are toast. He's the 2020 version of Jeb Bush.
Click to expand...

This is more like playing Prevent Defense from the opening kickoff.

The Jeb comparison is dead on.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Then there’s Tulsi, who “many” on Twitter seem to love even though none of her “supporters” ever talk about a single policy of hers. Very weak campaign by Russia on her part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top