The General Election

[knapplc]

What is the "working class"?

The most relevant current definition is probably "People that Hillary Clinton wants to vote for her."

[BigRedBuster]

 

What is the "working class"?

The most relevant current definition is probably "People that Hillary Clinton wants to vote for her."

 

That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure.

[Danny Bateman]

Defined in the policy as anyone from a household earning under $125k per year.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

She needs those Bernie supporters and this was probably on his list of demands.

Yup.

 

And there is no way in hell it ever passes.

Since when has Bernie ever cared about that?

 

I'm not a big fan of tuition-free school, though we do need to do a lot more to help rectify the financial burden on students. I guess we're in full blown appease Bernie mode.

Want to fix the market and reduce the burden on students? then we need to go the opposite way and stop subsidizing student loans. Rely on scholarships and finaid and make banks and schools actually assume the risk of the loans they issue and tuition they demand.

[cm husker]

Defined in the policy as anyone from a household earning under $125k per year.

And does that mean a kid from that situation gets free tuition to any institution he/she wants to attend, including Trump institutes?

 

Ridiculous. What if the person is a single mom in her 30s. Shouldn't she also get free tuition if she determines she needs more education?

 

These proposals are incredibly unfair and inefficient.

 

But boy do they sound good in 140 characters or less.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Defined in the policy as anyone from a household earning under $125k per year.

And does that mean a kid from that situation gets free tuition to any institution he/she wants to attend, including Trump institutes?

 

Ridiculous. What if the person is a single mom in her 30s. Shouldn't she also get free tuition if she determines she needs more education?

 

These proposals are incredibly unfair and inefficient.

 

But boy do they sound good in 140 characters or less.

 

 

State schools only. The only way this plan works is with help from the states themselves since they fund those schools.

 

There's lots of little details to be worked out re: who qualifies, I'd imagine. Let's just say I preferred Clinton's more moderate platform for addressing the cost of school.

[FrankWheeler]

God... most inefficient way to help poor people ever.

 

Just ridiculously stupid approach.

 

What would be an efficient way to help poor people?

[cm husker]

 

God... most inefficient way to help poor people ever.

 

Just ridiculously stupid approach.

 

What would be an efficient way to help poor people?

 

 

Minimum income that doesn't pick and choose what people should buy, whether that be medical insurance, food, phones or college educations.

[cm husker]

 

 

Defined in the policy as anyone from a household earning under $125k per year.

And does that mean a kid from that situation gets free tuition to any institution he/she wants to attend, including Trump institutes?

 

Ridiculous. What if the person is a single mom in her 30s. Shouldn't she also get free tuition if she determines she needs more education?

 

These proposals are incredibly unfair and inefficient.

 

But boy do they sound good in 140 characters or less.

 

 

State schools only. The only way this plan works is with help from the states themselves since they fund those schools.

 

There's lots of little details to be worked out re: who qualifies, I'd imagine. Let's just say I preferred Clinton's more moderate platform for addressing the cost of school.

 

 

I think some of those details are quite big.

 

I can see a problem immediately, and it's evident in all welfare cliffs. I am a parent making $120,000 a year. I have a chance to invest in something or get a promotion that will make me $10,000 extra a year. Do I turn down that money or promotion because the value of free tuition for my child is $30,000 a year? A rational actor would, but that's clearly not a good outcome for society.

 

This stuff just doesn't work, as good as it sounds, even in "moderation."

[BigRedBuster]

This is no different than Trump claiming he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Both statements are total BS and only put out there to get ignorant people all excited to vote for them.

[FrankWheeler]

 

 

God... most inefficient way to help poor people ever.

 

Just ridiculously stupid approach.

 

What would be an efficient way to help poor people?

 

 

Minimum income that doesn't pick and choose what people should buy, whether that be medical insurance, food, phones or college educations.

 

 

Can you explain this to me better? Is the approach requiring businesses to pay higher minimum wages? Seems counter to the approach of allowing people to pick and choose what to pay for. Why require businesses to pay more for labor if they don't want to?

 

Would you include elementary and secondary education in not requiring people to buy it?

[cm husker]

I'll try to link to the thread where we discussed it. Basically, the government would pay every adult citizen a minimum income, which would be a credit against taxes or, if less than the minimum income in taxes is owed, a cash payment to the citizen.

 

It would replace all forms of welfare, whether corporate, middle class or poor (eg, no more tax deductions for mortgage interest, no more food stamps, no more corporate subsidies). It would also nullify the need for a minimum wage, because people would be able to take their minimum income and add whatever earning they can make on top of it.

 

Not sure what you mean with your last question. I am ok with privatizing schooling but would consider keeping elementary and secondary education public. There are actually a number of complications with my proposal related to minors, but I think they are outweighed by the overall benefits.

[Moiraine]

This is no different than Trump claiming he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Both statements are total BS and only put out there to get ignorant people all excited to vote for them.

I mostly agree. I think Sanders actually meant it but I never thought he's get it passed (and Clinton won't really try). What I don't agree on is how I'd feel about these things if they actually happened. That makes them different. The wall combined with everything else he says makes it hard to believe he's not racist and sexist.

[BigRedBuster]

 

This is no different than Trump claiming he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Both statements are total BS and only put out there to get ignorant people all excited to vote for them.

I mostly agree. I think Sanders actually meant it but I never thought he's get it passed (and Clinton won't really try). What I don't agree on is how I'd feel about these things if they actually happened. That makes them different. The wall combined with everything else he says makes it hard to believe he's not racist and sexist.

 

And, the free tuition proposal is a pathetic way for a power hungry politician to try to buy young votes.

 

These ideas of free tuition are idiotic ideas just like the wall.

[HuskerNation1]

Here is a great read that I would recommend for anyone interested in the general election, even those that think Trump is a dope. It comes from his son-in-law who is not a super-partisan guy and has worked for Cory Booker's campaign in the past (who is supposed to be on Hillary's short list). For me this is a common theme I have heard about Trump, that those that know the real guy behind the scenes think he's a great guy, and the more you get to know him the more you will like him. Now most of us will never get to know him so we are simply left with what we see on television and via social media.

 

http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/