Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

If this country had a single-payer system like any other competent country, no I wouldn't. And then we'd be able to focus negotiations on other badly needed stuff like better working rules. (And maybe even that free cookie on St. Patrick's Day...)

if we had single payer higher education, how are costs going to be controlled there? mookie is pretty sure everyone agrees that a year of kollege should be somthing less than 70k/yr. do we then only pay for kids going to kommunity kollege? state skools? or do we foot harvard? and if harvard's keep raising prices to bu/bc/tufts follow along so they still market themselves as 'next best thing'?

mookie'd like to hear somethin on the expense side. does the gov'ment encourage university costs to come down? like if tuition is more than .75 the local mean annual wage they will remove their tax exempt status?

sure, high school is free. but just take for example the class sizes there. much more cost effective than a 6-to-1 2 hrs/week study with a tenured prof.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Not really. I know what you're saying, but one of the advantages of incumbency is it also draws the most bribes. On the whole, public financing would make elections more competitive, particularly when combined with an end to partisan gerrymandering.

so if now super pacs raise hundreds of millions of dollars (multiple super pacs that is too). does your thought imply that this is now publicly financed? that we won't have people jumping in line to get their hands on that public financing to run for any office every 2 years in congress?

mookie may have a new career lined up!!! professional candidate keep getting public funds to run for office and just stay in hotels while campaigning and eat out and meet folks.

that can't be what everyone has in mind, is it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I'm all for taking advantage, but I don't like derp, period. And the most ardent Bernie supporters, at least those on my Facebook feed and elsewhere, have more than their fair share of derp in their rantings. I've tended leftward as I age primarily because the left has been the adult in the room to the GOP's screaming toddlers, but I also see screaming tantrums coming from the left these days. They aren't nearly close to or equivalent to the GOP's yet, but I'm not liking even that slight/modest uptick

I'm not on Facebook or the other pacifiers, so I can't speak to that, and I stay away from DU and those sites like the plague, but I have to say I haven't yet seen this. I've heard about "Bernie Bros" and I believe they're out there, I guess, but I've yet to see one. I believe you guys when you say there is a rising number of lefties who are playing in the same kindergarten the right has lived in for the last decade plus. I just haven't seen them yet.

What I have seen is people who take any statement in favor of Bernie's policies and immediately extrapolate a huge pile of nonsense, in what seems like an obvious effort to deny, deflect, discredit what strictly on the merits are reasons to favor Bernie's liberalism over Hillary's centrism. So far the derp I've seen is from Clinton apologists, and to be honest even that isn't genuine derp -- it's just the usual nastiness of a tough campaign.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

tv isn't going to give away free time, are they?

is the local printer going to supply free signs?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

so if now super pacs raise hundreds of millions of dollars (multiple super pacs that is too). does your thought imply that this is now publicly financed? that we won't have people jumping in line to get their hands on that public financing to run for any office every 2 years in congress?

mookie may have a new career lined up!!! professional candidate keep getting public funds to run for office and just stay in hotels while campaigning and eat out and meet folks.

that can't be what everyone has in mind, is it?

I don't know about "everybody." What I have in mind is strict limits on personal campaign contributions -- say, 1% of median annual income. All contributions have to be FROM one eligible voter TO one registered candidate. No non-person entities (PACs, corporations, unions) can contribute. No contributions can be to a party or for an issue; in fact the only aggregation for financing can be done by a candidate's personal campaign staff. If you want to flood the airwaves with your message, you have to inspire more actual human beings to give their $500 or $600. If networks charge more than that for ads, you lose. The internet's always free.

Also, no candidates can self-fund; the days of plute Caesars crossing the Rubicon with their fortune legions is over.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

if we had single payer higher education, how are costs going to be controlled there? mookie is pretty sure everyone agrees that a year of kollege should be somthing less than 70k/yr. do we then only pay for kids going to kommunity kollege? state skools? or do we foot harvard? and if harvard's keep raising prices to bu/bc/tufts follow along so they still market themselves as 'next best thing'?

mookie'd like to hear somethin on the expense side. does the gov'ment encourage university costs to come down? like if tuition is more than .75 the local mean annual wage they will remove their tax exempt status?

sure, high school is free. but just take for example the class sizes there. much more cost effective than a 6-to-1 2 hrs/week study with a tenured prof.

One solution is free state colleges and let the private schools charge whatever they want but no more public loans. Public schools undercut the private schools, middle class people vote larger public school budgets because their kids will be going to them, not just the poor. Broaden out post-high school education to include free public trade schools to undercut for-profit credential mills and give poor kids another viable path besides the army (or crime). Intertwine the trade schools with continuing education (we already have the infrastructure to do this in community colleges) to once again inspire middle class voters to support them rather than just starving them as poverty ghettos.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I don't know about "everybody." What I have in mind is strict limits on personal campaign contributions -- say, 1% of median annual income. All contributions have to be FROM one eligible voter TO one registered candidate. No non-person entities (PACs, corporations, unions) can contribute. No contributions can be to a party or for an issue; in fact the only aggregation for financing can be done by a candidate's personal campaign staff. If you want to flood the airwaves with your message, you have to inspire more actual human beings to give their $500 or $600. If networks charge more than that for ads, you lose. The internet's always free.

Also, no candidates can self-fund; the days of plute Caesars crossing the Rubicon with their fortune legions is over.

nothing mookie reads here is "public". this is all fundraising, but restricted. so incumbents with war chests in the millions will be set for life.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

nothing mookie reads here is "public". this is all fundraising, but restricted. so incumbents with war chests in the millions will be set for life.

Public financing is a floor amount distributed to all candidates who make certain qualifications which the states themselves can determine (and which we have now -- getting the nomination of a party that carried 10% for the office last time; getting some number of signatures; etc). All qualifiers get the same amount to build a staff and start soliciting for additional, restricted private funds from actual humans. The bias will be to back policies that benefit larger numbers of people, rather than individual people with a sh-tload of money.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

One solution is free state colleges and let the private schools charge whatever they want but no more public loans. Public schools undercut the private schools, middle class people vote larger public school budgets because their kids will be going to them, not just the poor. Broaden out post-high school education to include free public trade schools to undercut for-profit credential mills and give poor kids another viable path besides the army (or crime). Intertwine the trade schools with continuing education (we already have the infrastructure to do this in community colleges) to once again inspire middle class voters to support them rather than just starving them as poverty ghettos.

are the cornell's and harvard's and tuft's and rice's of the world on board with this?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

nothing mookie reads here is "public". this is all fundraising, but restricted. so incumbents with war chests in the millions will be set for life.

Those warchests disappear. Candidates are not permitted to self-finance. Unused funds go to the treasury -- the day after the election each candidate retains no dollars, and can't build a warchest over multiple elections.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Public financing is a floor amount distributed to all candidates who make certain qualifications which the states themselves can determine (and which we have now -- getting the nomination of a party that carried 10% for the office last time; getting some number of signatures; etc). All qualifiers get the same amount to build a staff and start soliciting for additional, restricted private funds from actual humans. The bias will be to back policies that benefit larger numbers of people, rather than individual people with a sh-tload of money.

so you are severely restricting the fields going into primaries to get that nomination (again, favoring war chest laden incumbents)

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Those warchests disappear. Candidates are not permitted to self-finance. Unused funds go to the treasury -- the day after the election each candidate retains no dollars, and can't build a warchest over multiple elections.

by gunpoint?

that is one aggressive tax

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

are the cornell's and harvard's and tuft's and rice's of the world on board with this?

I have two answers to that.

1) Harvard, at least, can afford to attract poor honor students by dipping into their endowment. They do already.
2) If they can't, f-ck em. There is nothing inherent in a prestige school that benefits its students intellectually except for the quality of faculty and fellow students. If UNC winds up with better students than Duke because of free public tuition, then Duke can lower costs to compete or drop dead.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

so you are severely restricting the fields going into primaries to get that nomination

I don't think so. With no warchest, incumbents or plute candidates won't be able to scare off competitors. There will likely be larger nomination fields for most if not all offices.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I have two answers to that.

1) Harvard, at least, can afford to attract poor honor students by dipping into their endowment. They do already.
2) If they can't, f-ck em. There is nothing inherent in a prestige school that benefits its students intellectually except for the quality of faculty and fellow students. If UNC winds up with better students than Duke because of free public tuition, then Duke can lower costs to compete or drop dead.

can't we go and claim (or tax or steal) these endowments? they sure seem very similar to political incumbent warchests!! years and years of intake from pell grants and student loans (by way of allowing contributions to be banked instead of spent on the actual education).

if we can rob peter can we also not rob paul?

would love to see HMC get a bill from the treasury

 

[busterman62]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

And we'll have to spend most of our energy negotiating half way decent medical coverage and a raise big enough to cover inflation. But hey, the stock market will go up...

Without knowing directly, I would be willing to bet a fairly large sum of cash that your current coverage is considerably better than Medicare. Not trying to troll here but why would you want to take a step backwards with Bernie's proposal?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I don't think so. With no warchest, incumbents or plute candidates won't be able to scare off competitors. There will likely be larger nomination fields for most if not all offices.

still think you'll have an issue with revenues meeting expenses, but ok for now.

(and can't see chuck schumer anyhow giving up his bank)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

still think you'll have an issue with revenues meeting expenses, but ok for now.

(and can't see chuck schumer anyhow giving up his bank)

My God, that's reason enough to do it right there.

Expenses are held down by revenues. Instead of a $2B presidential election we get maybe a $500M one. A few ad agencies and twenty thousand consultants might go bankrupt, which is another reason to do it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

can't we go and claim (or tax or steal) these endowments? they sure seem very similar to political incumbent warchests!! years and years of intake from pell grants and student loans (by way of allowing contributions to be banked instead of spent on the actual education).

if we can rob peter can we also not rob paul?

would love to see HMC get a bill from the treasury

Harvey Mudd College?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Without knowing directly, I would be willing to bet a fairly large sum of cash that your current coverage is considerably better than Medicare. Not trying to troll here but why would you want to take a step backwards with Bernie's proposal?

mookie would win that large sum with ease.

not only does mookie still have to pay thousands in payroll contributions for 'insurance', that insurance now only kicks in after he is out of pocket thousands more. and it's no longer called "co-pay", but "co-insurance" which not just nickels and dimes him, but quarters and half-dollars him until he reached many thousands. then, AND ONLY THEN, will he get coverage that he did last year.

mookie has already had to cancel doctor appointments and self-adjust meds.

unfortunate that mookie's employer was a early adapter to obamacare and the insurance alliance, but has learned that everyone else will be swimming along side if not next year then the year after.

co-pays will become museum conversation in short time.