It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Before that legislation, FAFSA already made up more than 80% of college loans, so it didn't change much. Which were services by a third party. Who is and idiot? Now, why would a complete government takeover of student loans be in the Obamacare bill? Have you thought about that for even one moment? Or are you dumb enough to think it's entirely unrelated?
Obamacare subsidies (including Medicaid) are partially funded by the interest paid on student loan debt.
Didn't you just say that Bernie's free public college would cut out lenders who "profit from the poor"? For profit universities and public colleges that have continued to raise tuition are the "lenders" I am referring to.
Sanders is cutting out the federal government loans that profits from the poor... loans that provide interest revenue to subsidize healthcare for the poor... This is all just too much. >>>Implying healthcare would fail without that interest.
>>>implying taxes can't be relocated to accomadate the insignifcant loss (8.7billion)
You've just proven again that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. ................
So now, in your most humble opinion, without all that interest money from the loans, how are you going to pay for Obamacare subsidies, Medicaid, or even Sanders' "Medicare for all"? Is higher taxes your answer to everything? Have you ever taken an accounting course in your life? How much do we spend on war?
If you're even in college, you've definitely proved my point about dumb college students. Why are you such a dickhead? I'm honestly curious...
The last refuge of an absolute moron, claim trolling when you're being decimated.
If you're going to reply, do it within your own reply and not within my quote, you Marxist clown. There is a certain level of decency and decorum that even a piece of shit like you should be able to abide by.
So I'll answer the only three things you actually wrote, which add up to absolutely nothing but the opinion of an idiot who cannot spell to save his life, or understand the difference between relocate and reallocate. You have zero understanding of economics, accounting, or even politics for that matter. You're essentially a vegetable who has retained the ability to speak and write.
So here they are:
">>>Implying healthcare would fail without that interest."
Yes, the subsidies for many people through Obamacare and Medicaid would fail. As it is, Obamacare coops are failing left and right, and taxpayers are already on the hook for 1.2 million, with 700,000 people thrown off coop plans that do not work.
">>>implying taxes can't be relocated to accomadate the insignifcant loss (8.7billion)
How much do we spend on war?"
Sure, tax revenue can be reallocated, but from where do you propose? The estimate is that the federal deficit for 2016 is already at $544 billion, what's another 8.7 billion? Screw the taxpayers who actually pay up for all the wonderful programs you want.
But the brilliant solution of any hardcore leftist, gut the armed forces! As if that weren't taking place already, but militant Marxists like yourself won't be content until defense spending is near zero. Perhaps we should cut back on the 59 billion we spend on fighting the Islamic State, you'd like that wouldn't you?
CampeadorSo I'll answer the only three things you actually wrote, which add up to absolutely nothing but the opinion of an idiot who cannot spell to save his life, or understand the difference between relocate and reallocate. You have zero understanding of economics, accounting, or even politics for that matter. You're essentially a vegetable who has retained the ability to speak and write.
If you cannot carry on any kind of reasonable political discourse, then I recommend you get the hell out. Go save the world with your cut-rate ethnic studies degree.
If you cannot carry on any kind of reasonable political discourse, then I recommend you get the hell out. Go save the world with your cut-rate ethnic studies degree.
Dear Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman,
We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims. We have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats, and worked to ensure that forecasts of the effects of proposed economic policies, from investment in infrastructure, to education and training, to health care reforms, are grounded in economic evidence. Largely as a result of efforts like these, the Democratic party has rightfully earned a reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies.
We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders's economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.
As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party's best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.
Sincerely,
Alan Krueger, Princeton University
Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2011-2013
Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago Booth School
Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2010-2011
Christina Romer, University of California at Berkeley
Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2009-2010
Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California at Berkeley Haas School of Business
If you want to ignore it, fine. But that makes you, as I have stated before, part of the problem with the American electorate.
It should say something that 4, 4!!!, former members of the Council of Economic Advisers are calling into question Sander's and Friedman's figures. They are not criticizing his idea's, but rather the perceived outcome.
Whether or not you like Bill or Obama, they both have had success growing the economy (and in Bill's case, decreasing the deficit), and that can be attributed to their advisers (some of whom are these writers).
Hell, even Krugman (who by the way was anti-Obama too) supports these ideas.
"In Sanders's case, I don't think it's ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he's proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners. And if your response to these concerns is that they're all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem."
onenerdykid1. How is it socialism when the government will not own the means of production nor dictate the execution of what products need to be produced?
The main problem is people don't understand what true socialism is. Its supposed to have the government whither away and the people in control of ownership and decision making. Its actually a lot closer to what Libertarians want than even the current republican party promotes.
What people hate is communism, where there's a massive central authority making all the decisions. The funny thing is that when you start to look at an Oligarchy - where the rich control the government - its not far off of communism.
True capitalism and true socialism are not even remotely close to what people think they are... and as such guys like Bernie get written off in fear of turning into Russia back in the cold war days.
If you want to ignore it, fine. But that makes you, as I have stated before, part of the problem with the American electorate. No it doesn't.
Whether or not you like Bill or Obama, they both have had success growing the economy (and in Bill's case, decreasing the deficit), and that can be attributed to their advisers (some of whom are these writers).
Pretty sure Bill's success was due to Robert Reich, who is a HUGE Sanders supporter.
I would bet that if you dig deeper into where your analysts intetests are and where they get their money from, it would paint a very clear picture that it is propaganda.
Teasing the speech over the weekend, Clinton's campaign released a list of the economic brains who helped shape it. The roster — heavy with liberal stalwarts including Christina Romer, Obama's first chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Jared Bernstein, formerly Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist; Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress; and Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist — itself testifies to Clinton's conscious move to the left.
S.J.WDefinitely a diversion to scare people for not voting for Sanders. You know how much the establishment is scared of him.
B1tchPretty sure Bill's success was due to Robert Reich, who is a HUGE Sanders supporter.
I would bet that if you dig deeper into where your analysts intetests are and where they get their money from, it would paint a very clear picture that it is propaganda.
That is his Secretary of Labor....and he is not a PhD in Economics. But that is OK.
B1tchTeasing the speech over the weekend, Clinton's campaign released a list of the economic brains who helped shape it. The roster — heavy with liberal stalwarts including Christina Romer, Obama's first chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Jared Bernstein, formerly Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist; Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress; and Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist — itself testifies to Clinton's conscious move to the left.
Mr.BishopTrue capitalism and true socialism are not even remotely close to what people think they are... and as such guys like Bernie get written off in fear of turning into Russia back in the cold war days.
Perhaps because Bernie is a lifelong fan of Russia back in the cold war days.
Bernie Sanders is too inept to take it that far, but the damage he'd do by trying would be horrible. He's been enamored with capital "S" Socialism his whole life.
I mean, this is the same person who renamed Burlington the People's Republic of Burlington, honeymooned in the Soviet Union as part of a political outreach program, and wrote Che Guevara-style love letters to the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
CampeadorPerhaps because Bernie is a lifelong fan of Russia back in the cold war days.
Bernie Sanders is too inept to take it that far, but the damage he'd do by trying would be horrible. He's been enamored with capital "S" Socialism his whole life.
I mean, this is the same person who renamed Burlington the People's Republic of Burlington, honeymooned in the Soviet Union as part of a political outreach program, and wrote Che Guevara-style love letters to the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
.MASSHOLE.That is his Secretary of Labor....and he is not a PhD in Economics. But that is OK.
So anyone who disagrees with Sanders is a hack/part of the establishment? You guys are sounding like Trump with his criticisms.
Christ you guys are unbelievable.
And anyone who supports Sanders like Friedman does, doesn't have the economic evidence??? But hey, let's just stick to trickle down economics, we all know how well that's going for us...
Sanders is a radical Marxist who wants a "political revolution", just like his hero Eugene Debs. The parallels between him and Chile's Salvador Allende are uncanny.
Mr.BishopThe main problem is people don't understand what true socialism is. Its supposed to have the government whither away and the people in control of ownership and decision making. Its actually a lot closer to what Libertarians want than even the current republican party promotes.
What people hate is communism, where there's a massive central authority making all the decisions. The funny thing is that when you start to look at an Oligarchy - where the rich control the government - its not far off of communism.
True capitalism and true socialism are not even remotely close to what people think they are... and as such guys like Bernie get written off in fear of turning into Russia back in the cold war days.
what? the definition of socialism is literally that the "government controls the means of production". capitlism is the means of prodcution controlled by the individuals. communism is means of production controlled by no one. these are just the economic defintions though. if anything an oligharcy would be closest to socialism where one state entity controls everything.
S.J.WAnd anyone who supports Sanders like Friedman does, doesn't have the economic evidence??? But hey, let's just stick to trickle down economics, we all know how well that's going for us...
Friedman's economic analysis has been WIDELY criticized so far, by almost every side except Sander's camp, by numerous economists from both sides and those in the middle. Look at his employment graph in his paper
He has employment rising DESPITE making college free, unlinking employment from healthcare, and enhancing social security. You know what that does? Affect labor supply at the margin. I hope you are smart enough to understand what this means.
We haven't even discussed the fact that the country is facing MASSIVE demographic headwinds. There is almost ZERO chance the employment number is at 65%.
You can find economic evidence pointing to it working, but you will find a lot more saying it does not.
Sounds familiar right? Sounds like the Climate Change Deniers versus the rest of the world.
And nice try saying I support trickle down economics. Just because I do not agree with Sanders does not mean I am a hardcore conservative idiot or a gullible liberal who follows the establishment.
I just don't buy into a single party/candidate at their word.
The Sanders circlejerk is real. He can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.
.MASSHOLE.Friedman's economic analysis has been WIDELY criticized so far, by almost every side except Sander's camp, by numerous economists from both sides and those in the middle. Look at his employment graph in his paper
He has employment rising DESPITE making college free, unlinking employment from healthcare, and enhancing social security. You know what that does? Affect labor supply at the margin. I hope you are smart enough to understand what this means.
We haven't even discussed the fact that the country is facing MASSIVE demographic headwinds. There is almost ZERO chance the employment number is at 65%.
You can find economic evidence pointing to it working, but you will find a lot more saying it does not.
Sounds familiar right? Sounds like the Climate Change Deniers versus the rest of the world.
And nice try saying I support trickle down economics. Just because I do not agree with Sanders does not mean I am a hardcore conservative idiot or a gullible liberal who follows the establishment.
I just don't buy into a single party/candidate at their word.
The Sanders circlejerk is real. He can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.
Let's be clear about one thing first. I neither agree or disagree with Friedman or any economists putting forward hypothetical situations for a presidents spending habits. It's too hard to gauge the future of the economy, let alone the economy with the proposed tax and spending. Notice, how I didn't post Friedmans study, I too thought it was too unrealistic. However I still think Bernie is the best chance at ensuring America doesn't fall into shit. I mean, you have pretty much the entire republican field who thinks debt doesn't exist when it comes to fighting wars, and Clinton who is Clinton.
But I will address a few points here that could hypothetically work.
Rising LFPR, despite making college free. You currently have 33 million Americans who are not working, this can be accounted for the aging population as well as hidden unemployment. But with that 33 million comes 3 million skilled jobs that are left vacant because they can't be filled. Now, are Americans just naturally dumb that can't fulfill skilled jobs? Or, do you have a shortage of skilled workers?
Now onto college, I think Onenerdykid or someone else has covered how not everyone needs to go college and that trade schools and other options should be pushed as well. But just incase it hasn't. In Australia and many other countries where higher education is free or heavily subsidised, there are usually ways of being accepted into college that don't include who has the most money. So in Australia, to get into university you must achieve a certain mark in school. So it forces people into courses where they're most suited. They're is also a huge presence of trade schools where you can learning roofing, or plumbing, etc, etc alongside your apprenticeship. This whole idea of if college is free everyone will get a college education is bullshit. Now I hope Bernie would do something along the lines of what other countries do. This limits the amount of higher educated people, and you don't just saturate the economy with workers who can't find jobs. Point in case...
But yeah link economics to climate change, because how many times do you see expected GDP or growth, or unemployment fall short of their estimates. Economists are wrong all the time, and this is within a very short period of time, so to say one economist is right and one economist is wrong when there is another 10 months or whatever til the federal election is bullshit. You will have conservative economists disagreeing with Bernie, and liberal economists agreeing with him and anywhere in between.
S.J.WLet's be clear about one thing first. I neither agree or disagree with Friedman or any economists putting forward hypothetical situations for a presidents spending habits. It's too hard to gauge the future of the economy, let alone the economy with the proposed tax and spending. Notice, how I didn't post Friedmans study, I too thought it was too unrealistic. However I still think Bernie is the best chance at ensuring America doesn't fall into shit. I mean, you have pretty much the entire republican field who thinks debt doesn't exist when it comes to fighting wars, and Clinton who is Clinton.
But I will address a few points here that could hypothetically work.
Rising LFPR, despite making college free. You currently have 33 million Americans who are not working, this can be accounted for the aging population as well as hidden unemployment. But with that 33 million comes 3 million skilled jobs that are left vacant because they can't be filled. Now, are Americans just naturally dumb that can't fulfill skilled jobs? Or, do you have a shortage of skilled workers?
Now onto college, I think Onenerdykid or someone else has covered how not everyone needs to go college and that trade schools and other options should be pushed as well. But just incase it hasn't. In Australia and many other countries where higher education is free or heavily subsidised, there are usually ways of being accepted into college that don't include who has the most money. So in Australia, to get into university you must achieve a certain mark in school. So it forces people into courses where they're most suited. They're is also a huge presence of trade schools where you can learning roofing, or plumbing, etc, etc alongside your apprenticeship. This whole idea of if college is free everyone will get a college education is bullshit. Now I hope Bernie would do something along the lines of what other countries do. This limits the amount of higher educated people, and you don't just saturate the economy with workers who can't find jobs. Point in case...
But yeah link economics to climate change, because how many times do you see expected GDP or growth, or unemployment fall short of their estimates. Economists are wrong all the time, and this is within a very short period of time, so to say one economist is right and one economist is wrong when there is another 10 months or whatever til the federal election is bullshit. You will have conservative economists disagreeing with Bernie, and liberal economists agreeing with him and anywhere in between.
You hit my point in your first paragraph. It IS too unrealistic to expect Sander's economic policies to do what he says, just like it is with every other policy out there. It could overshoot or it could undershoot. What worries me the most is that almost all other economists are saying his idea's are good, but his figures are not and that they will most likely be higher.
LFPR is going to decrease as this current aging generation begins to retire despite our generation entering the workforce because those leaving greatly outnumber those entering. Do not forget you are missing those who may no longer work at a younger age because they can get full health and social security benefits without worry.
Sure, we may have 3 million jobs available for skilled workers and those can be filled by educated workers under Sanders plan, but what is to stop them from being outsourced due to labor issues/costs? Do not say regulations and fines. A multi-billion dollar company is going to do a cost-benefit analysis and find the optimal rates.
I 100% agree with your stance on education and trades. I have said it time and time again for the past few years that trade schools need to be emphasized as a great alternative to traditional college.
But, I also brought up the issue earlier in this thread about the college situation. Assuming you raise the bar to get into college, you are still going to have the wealthier further ahead from the start.
This is due to wealth privileges. These privileges include tutors, access to private schools, access to better public schools due to where they live, and other luxuries that come with wealth. Sure, these students may not be able to buy a position in school, but they will be able to "buy" better test scores and resume padders due to their money.
Since you can no longer differentiate students by who can and cannot pay, you have to do it academically. But if you do it that way, the wealthy/more prepared students will still have an inherent advantage. Their test scores will most likely be higher on average as they are more apt prepared for standardized exams, regardless of the format.
Does this mean you have a policy like affirmative action? Does this mean Joey from LA with a 4.0 and 2100 on the SAT can't go to his favorite school, UC Berkley, because Daniel from Compton with a 2.9 and a 1600 SAT is going instead due to a quota? That is a tough thing to push.
Once these privileged students enter college, they will still be at an advantage. You cannot expect every student to enter school with the same background knowledge. How many students from disadvantaged backgrounds will fail out? What then? Do you have to carry students along so they succeed? Or do you let them fail?
College is not the answer currently, a better elementary and high school educational system is. Sanders does not seem to have a policy in place to fix this.
Think of education like a tree. Elementary, middle, and high school are the roots, trunk, and branches respectively, leaving college to be the leaves. Each contributes to the growth of the tree, and without any of them, it could not survive. However, Sanders is only looking at the leaves, thinking the rest of the tree is fine. In fact, it is slowly dying. If you were an American you would recognize this. He is working from the top down. He needs to work from the bottom up.
I linked economics to climate change not because of the numbers, but because of how people only take figures that fit their story, despite an overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sander's has had more economists come out saying his policies have the wrong estimates than those come out supporting him.
But, if you want to use numbers, think about it this way. Like in climate change, no scientist knows how long it will take for the world to shit the bed but they know it is coming and can guess as to when, economists know Sanders plan is not going to work out like he predicts but they do not know by how much.
.MASSHOLE.You hit my point in your first paragraph. It IS too unrealistic to expect Sander's economic policies to do what he says, just like it is with every other policy out there. It could overshoot or it could undershoot. What worries me the most is that almost all other economists are saying his idea's are good, but his figures are not and that they will most likely be higher.
LFPR is going to decrease as this current aging generation begins to retire despite our generation entering the workforce because those leaving greatly outnumber those entering. Do not forget you are missing those who may no longer work at a younger age because they can get full health and social security benefits without worry.
Sure, we may have 3 million jobs available for skilled workers and those can be filled by educated workers under Sanders plan, but what is to stop them from being outsourced due to labor issues/costs? Do not say regulations and fines. A multi-billion dollar company is going to do a cost-benefit analysis and find the optimal rates.
I 100% agree with your stance on education and trades. I have said it time and time again for the past few years that trade schools need to be emphasized as a great alternative to traditional college.
But, I also brought up the issue earlier in this thread about the college situation. Assuming you raise the bar to get into college, you are still going to have the wealthier further ahead from the start.
This is due to wealth privileges. These privileges include tutors, access to private schools, access to better public schools due to where they live, and other luxuries that come with wealth. Sure, these students may not be able to buy a position in school, but they will be able to "buy" better test scores and resume padders due to their money.
Since you can no longer differentiate students by who can and cannot pay, you have to do it academically. But if you do it that way, the wealthy/more prepared students will still have an inherent advantage. Their test scores will most likely be higher on average as they are more apt prepared for standardized exams, regardless of the format.
Does this mean you have a policy like affirmative action? Does this mean Joey from LA with a 4.0 and 2100 on the SAT can't go to his favorite school, UC Berkley, because Daniel from Compton with a 2.9 and a 1600 SAT is going instead due to a quota? That is a tough thing to push.
Once these privileged students enter college, they will still be at an advantage. You cannot expect every student to enter school with the same background knowledge. How many students from disadvantaged backgrounds will fail out? What then? Do you have to carry students along so they succeed? Or do you let them fail?
College is not the answer currently, a better elementary and high school educational system is. Sanders does not seem to have a policy in place to fix this.
Think of education like a tree. Elementary, middle, and high school are the roots, trunk, and branches respectively, leaving college to be the leaves. Each contributes to the growth of the tree, and without any of them, it could not survive. However, Sanders is only looking at the leaves, thinking the rest of the tree is fine. In fact, it is slowly dying. If you were an American you would recognize this. He is working from the top down. He needs to work from the bottom up.
I linked economics to climate change not because of the numbers, but because of how people only take figures that fit their story, despite an overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sander's has had more economists come out saying his policies have the wrong estimates than those come out supporting him.
But, if you want to use numbers, think about it this way. Like in climate change, no scientist knows how long it will take for the world to shit the bed but they know it is coming and can guess as to when, economists know Sanders plan is not going to work out like he predicts but they do not know by how much.
I agree with pretty much all of your statement, but Sanders does want to put money into public schools.
Let's take Australia for example, the difference in education between a private school where it costs 20K a year to attend a public school aren't all that different when it comes down to the tests.
Now the divide in Australia between the rich and the poor isn't that big, but it still gives you an idea of how private schools are all show.
The education system in America is fucked.
But you constantly say all these economists disagree with Bernie, and yet you haven't posted a list of economists that disagree with him? Where as I can find many economists that agree with him.
S.J.WI agree with pretty much all of your statement, but Sanders does want to put money into public schools.
Let's take Australia for example, the difference in education between a private school where it costs 20K a year to attend a public school aren't all that different when it comes down to the tests.
Now the divide in Australia between the rich and the poor isn't that big, but it still gives you an idea of how private schools are all show.
The education system in America is fucked.
But you constantly say all these economists disagree with Bernie, and yet you haven't posted a list of economists that disagree with him? Where as I can find many economists that agree with him.
There is massive gap between the average public and private school in America, but that was not my point. My point was that there is still a divide even between public schools in America. Schools on Long Island are going to be better than schools from rural Texas, California, Maine, etc. just due to funding alone. Is Bernie planning on equalizing all the K-12 public school systems?
There is a difference between supporting those ideas, and then supporting the numbers he gets out of it.
I am not debating the WS or Min. wage levels. I agree changes need to be made, but not necessarily with his plan for those two. You can see my other posts in this thread for the reasons, no need to reiterate.
I posted 5 well known and respected economists who have debated his figures from his proposed plans. They don't disagree with his plans, but rather the figures he extrapolates from them. Four were above, and the other was Kenneth Thorpe, the man who was hired to design what was going to be the first single-payer system in the country in VT.
As I have stated many times, my point is not that his plan cannot or will not work, but rather that people need to stop taking it was testament and understand that it is most likely going to be more expensive and frankly hurt some of the people it was meant to protect. That is it.
.MASSHOLE.There is massive gap between the average public and private school in America, but that was not my point. My point was that there is still a divide even between public schools in America. Schools on Long Island are going to be better than schools from rural Texas, California, Maine, etc. just due to funding alone. Is Bernie planning on equalizing all the K-12 public school systems?
There is a difference between supporting those ideas, and then supporting the numbers he gets out of it.
I am not debating the WS or Min. wage levels. I agree changes need to be made, but not necessarily with his plan for those two. You can see my other posts in this thread for the reasons, no need to reiterate.
I posted 5 well known and respected economists who have debated his figures from his proposed plans. They don't disagree with his plans, but rather the figures he extrapolates from them. Four were above, and the other was Kenneth Thorpe, the man who was hired to design what was going to be the first single-payer system in the country in VT.
As I have stated many times, my point is not that his plan cannot or will not work, but rather that people need to stop taking it was testament and understand that it is most likely going to be more expensive and frankly hurt some of the people it was meant to protect. That is it.
And there are also well know and respected economists who agree with Bernie Sanders. This isn't like climate change where 98.7% of scientists agree it's real. You've posted like 5 economists and saying yeah no economist agrees with Bernie when clearly there are economists who agree with him. But the thing with linking economists is you need to realise that there is much more to economics than just right or wrong, you have keynesian economics, Chartalism economics, classical, Austrian, etc,etc. All will have different ideas and outcomes and will criticise different aspects of other peoples plan. A keynesian economist will agree with Bernie, while a classical economist will disagree with him.
you can easily find Bernies plan on education here.
And you can not say for certain that Bernies plan will not work. This is not high school economics where you're figuring out the quota of a graph and there is a right or wrong answer. There are too many variables to conclude that Bernie's plan will not work or if it i will work. You saying conclusive that Bernies plan won't work is just proving that you're being willfully ignorant about economics.
S.J.WAnd there are also well know and respected economists who agree with Bernie Sanders. This isn't like climate change where 98.7% of scientists agree it's real. You've posted like 5 economists and saying yeah no economist agrees with Bernie when clearly there are economists who agree with him. But the thing with linking economists is you need to realise that there is much more to economics than just right or wrong, you have keynesian economics, Chartalism economics, classical, Austrian, etc,etc. All will have different ideas and outcomes and will criticise different aspects of other peoples plan. A keynesian economist will agree with Bernie, while a classical economist will disagree with him.
you can easily find Bernies plan on education here.
And you can not say for certain that Bernies plan will not work. This is not high school economics where you're figuring out the quota of a graph and there is a right or wrong answer. There are too many variables to conclude that Bernie's plan will not work or if it i will work. You saying conclusive that Bernies plan won't work is just proving that you're being willfully ignorant about economics.
Find me an economist who agrees with his figures for his entire plan besides Gerald Friedman and his own group. I'm not talking "Oh I agree with his plan, his ideas are good", I am talking "well his expenditures here are on point, there they are a little high or low, etc.".
Trust me, I know there are numerous types of economic schools, I have have taken numerous courses looking at the differences between Marxian, Keynesian, and Austrian schools to list a few.
His website does not answer my question. He talks about what he will remove, not what he will implement to make the necessary changes that will fix the situation. Sure it is great, talk about removing the No Child Left Behind Act, but what are you going to do to fix the problem?! He mentions leaving the funding up to the states. Some states are poorer than others, that still does not fix the issue! There are so many questions left unanswered that, in turn, leave me skeptical of his plans.
You think I am trying to put a number on his figures, to say that other economists know what will happen, what I am saying is that his plan will LIKELY not come out to how he predicts. Do I know where it will fall? Hell no, if I did I would be making a lot more money than I do now.
What I am trying to do is provide another angle so that the god damn circle-jerk around him can be broken up and looked at with a critical eye.
I post a piece by some of the most well known and respected US economists disputing his numbers and it is instantly taken as propaganda or a smear-piece.
.MASSHOLE.As I have stated many times, my point is not that his plan cannot or will not work, but rather that people need to stop taking it was testament and understand that it is most likely going to be more expensive and frankly hurt some of the people it was meant to protect. That is it.
.MASSHOLE.what I am saying is that his plan will LIKELY not come out to how he predicts. Do I know where it will fall? Hell no.
S.J.WSurely you opinion on his plans not working couldn't have changed within 10 minutes?
Let me finish that quote for you. Base is the same. It is not going to be what he predicts it will. I personally believe it will fall higher, and it seems a lot of well-known economists agree. Only one outside of Bernie's camp has seemingly agreed with his figures.
Sanders is a radical Marxist who wants a "political revolution", just like his hero Eugene Debs. The parallels between him and Chile's Salvador Allende are uncanny.
If you go deep enough down the rabbit hole, you realize that the idea behind true socialism is that its still market driven, but the people own the assets and make the decisions - not a controlling force (government or a small group of wealthy people).
Yes, you do support everyone through social programs, which is hard to swallow when you've been raised in a country where "fuck that guy he didn't earn it so he can die" is the norm... but if you look at the costs of excluding the few lazy fucks and only supporting those who just need a cushion when times are tough... they're much higher than simply letting it go. The more people you raise out of poverty the more that are capable of making a country great.
Granted, this hasn't been tested at scale, which is the primary argument of most of the American media I consume. I admit that for sure. However, businesses are tested in small enterprises and then scaled large for the masses. Doesn't always work, but you can't say it never works.
The key for me is not writing off either side. I'm all for the free market, and listening to intelligent points about its virtues. Hell, I identify left as all hell in Canada, but I actually vote center. That is a big thing we have over you guys... multiple parties. The center is a nice compromise, where realistically is the place we all need to end up.
Also - in all of this economic issues are something you can't even properly address in your own system when you have religious ideals making up a huge part of your vote. Most modern countries got rid of religion in politics a long time ago and couldn't imagine having them back.
CampeadorThat's already the case, we have a progressive tax rate, and if my memory serves me, the top 1% already pay something like 40% of the nation's taxes.
Bernie Sanders' free tuition means all public universities, both 2-year and 4-year schools (which would include massive university systems like the UC system). One thing you have to realize is that for many 4-year public schools, most of their financing no longer comes directly from the state or federal governments.
We already fund the tuition costs of the poor (Pell grants and financial-need scholarships), so the only beneficiaries of free public 4-year school would be those who can already afford it (or who's parents can). This is simply demagoguery to get the vote of dumb college students. The vast majority of students with nightmare debt are coming out of private universities who reap FAFSA loans from their students, so the problem isn't really being addressed at all.
Hey dude, can you just confirm that your parents make a lot of money? I'm guessing the reason you don't have much perspective is that you didn't grow up like the rest of the kids in america.
philipcHey dude, can you just confirm that your parents make a lot of money? I'm guessing the reason you don't have much perspective is that you didn't grow up like the rest of the kids in america.
Mr.BishopThe main problem is people don't understand what true socialism is. Its supposed to have the government whither away and the people in control of ownership and decision making. Its actually a lot closer to what Libertarians want than even the current republican party promotes.
What people hate is communism, where there's a massive central authority making all the decisions.
This is exactly what Marx argued for- that the end goal of his system was that the government (as an external force) ceases to exist and people govern themselves. It is direct democracy in its most perfect form. Very few critics even know this about Marxist thought. If any of them ever cared to read his actual philosophy (rather than just regurgitate what others misinterpret or flat out get wrong) they would see that every "communist" government that has ever existed has failed to live up to any of the goals he put forth. Anyway, you bring up a very interesting point- the political spectrum isn't really a straight line from left to right, but more like a horseshoe shape where the extremes actually start to converge towards one another.
If you go deep enough down the rabbit hole, you realize that the idea behind true socialism is that its still market driven, but the people own the assets and make the decisions - not a controlling force (government or a small group of wealthy people).
Yes, you do support everyone through social programs, which is hard to swallow when you've been raised in a country where "fuck that guy he didn't earn it so he can die" is the norm... but if you look at the costs of excluding the few lazy fucks and only supporting those who just need a cushion when times are tough... they're much higher than simply letting it go. The more people you raise out of poverty the more that are capable of making a country great.
Market socialism is a misnomer, without economic incentive and profit, there is no market, only socialism.
What you're describing as "market socialism" as being that "the people own the assets and make the decisions" is just about a close as you can get to the textbook definition of Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Few systems have failed more miserably, case in point, the Sydicalist system in Aragon, Spain from 1936-1937. Not to mention all the failed attempts in the US to create coops out of any business larger than a coffee shop or corner grocer.
It's interesting how the same terrible, failed ideas for governance keep reappearing under new misleading names. Of all the systems of governance, Syndicalism is one of the few that is worse than Socialism.
onenerdykidThis is exactly what Marx argued for- that the end goal of his system was that the government (as an external force) ceases to exist and people govern themselves. It is direct democracy in its most perfect form. Very few critics even know this about Marxist thought. If any of them ever cared to read his actual philosophy (rather than just regurgitate what others misinterpret or flat out get wrong) they would see that every "communist" government that has ever existed has failed to live up to any of the goals he put forth. Anyway, you bring up a very interesting point- the political spectrum isn't really a straight line from left to right, but more like a horseshoe shape where the extremes actually start to converge towards one another.
Yeah man - that drives me crazy how much people don't actually understand the true Marxist philosophy of socialism. I'm all for stating that communism with a central planning authority corrupt beyond belief is garbage - but that is like saying the rich-controlled almost oligarchy that is in place in the US today is true capitalism. A libertarian would vomit at the state of what is in place right now.
Also yes, the horseshoe idea. It was actually brought up by Twig at our editorial meeting where we were discussing different styles of governance and he brought up the idea that the political spectrum is actually a circle. Kind of blew my mind, but when I thought about it everything started to make more sense.
I mean you're probably right that its more like a horseshoe... but there are anarchists floating somewhere in that gap who are not quite sure (or don't give a shit) if they're slightly left or right.
philipcHey dude, can you just confirm that your parents make a lot of money? I'm guessing the reason you don't have much perspective is that you didn't grow up like the rest of the kids in america.
I was expecting a better response than this, very disappointing.
It just means you have nothing of substance to say against any of the points I argued. Just baseless emotion-driven rhetoric.
I haven't received financial support from my folks for almost a decade now.
CampeadorIt's interesting how the same terrible, failed ideas for governance keep reappearing under new misleading names. Of all the systems of governance, Syndicalism is one of the few that is worse than Socialism.
Yes, like Oligarchies, which is what the American system is turning into today.
I'm also not pushing for complete socialism, rather defining it. I've seen too many people writing off socialism like its communism, which is false. Social support is also not a bad thing to have.
Really the biggest problem is that Americans polarize WAY too much in your politics. Its one extreme or the other and nobody wants to compromise. In Canada, we have elements of everyone that gets in... so we have a couple of left and right wing extremists, three main parties which are left, center and right - but most of the time they all kind of have to compromise to get anything done.
Mr.BishopYes, like Oligarchies, which is what the American system is turning into today.
I'm also not pushing for complete socialism, rather defining it. I've seen too many people writing off socialism like its communism, which is false. Social support is also not a bad thing to have.
Really the biggest problem is that Americans polarize WAY too much in your politics. Its one extreme or the other and nobody wants to compromise. In Canada, we have elements of everyone that gets in... so we have a couple of left and right wing extremists, three main parties which are left, center and right - but most of the time they all kind of have to compromise to get anything done.
Sorry, but to be frank, with that actual moron Canada just elected as prime minister, I'm not sure Canadians are in any position to be giving political advice to other countries.
CampeadorSorry, but to be frank, with that actual moron Canada just elected as prime minister, I'm not sure Canadians are in any position to be giving political advice to other countries.
CampeadorSorry, but to be frank, with that actual moron Canada just elected as prime minister, I'm not sure Canadians are in any position to be giving political advice to other countries.
I'm not giving advice, just engaging in discourse and clarity. I enjoy discussing politics with others, and am fascinated by what makes other countries tick. Its also really good to talk about these things, as having a view where you dismiss everyone as idiots who doesn't agree with you leads to a very narrow view. I've learned huge amounts of insight which I hold very valuable from highly intelligent fiscally right socially left people I've met in my travels in California which have opened my eyes to many other ways to look at politics. I consider it one of the most valuable things I can do - if I never look at the good points of the other side I never am able to adapt my opinions to something that might work better for all of us.
I think its a huge mistake to completely write off other parts of the political spectrum as "morons" because as mentioned, there are intelligent points on all sides. You shouldn't be ruining otherwise good discourse with name calling like that. Just like you guys are a different country with different goals and ideals, we are too.
I was a supporter of the Liberal party of Canada, and Justin Trudeau. They're our center party, so many of their platform decisions are a compromise. Our parliament system as well doesn't give so much power to one person or one party - its much more about the compromise in the end.
To a Conservative american, basically anything we do is going to seem crazy because as a country we're far lefter than almost anything you guys have. Hilary would be a conservative here, and Bernie a slightly left NDP. What we have works for us, and our multi party system really allows for more of the individual voice to be heard without having to get tangled up in such a hostile "right or left" battle.
Stay classy in the political discussion boys and girls... you might just end up getting smarter!
Mr.BishopI think its a huge mistake to completely write off other parts of the political spectrum as "morons" because as mentioned, there are intelligent points on all sides. You shouldn't be ruining otherwise good discourse with name calling like that. Just like you guys are a different country with different goals and ideals, we are too.
I was a supporter of the Liberal party of Canada, and Justin Trudeau.
Certainly, and it's worth noting that I didn't use the plural "morons", I reserved it for one person in particular, Justin Trudeau. And even if you support the guy, it's difficult to say that he is not a moron, who just happened to have the right father for Canadian politics. Not a moron because I disagree with him, but just an actual moron. Listening to the guy speak is just painful.
On the Boston bombing:
"And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes ... But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?"
But to be fair, if you want to criticize the US system, then the Canadian system is fair game as well. But like you said, you have your system, and we have ours. Having multiple parties can be just as bad as only having two.
CampeadorCertainly, and it's worth noting that I didn't use the plural "morons", I reserved it for one person in particular, Justin Trudeau. And even if you support the guy, it's difficult to say that he is not a moron, who just happened to have the right father for Canadian politics. Not a moron because I disagree with him, but just an actual moron. Listening to the guy speak is just painful.
On the Boston bombing:
"And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes ... But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?"
But to be fair, if you want to criticize the US system, then the Canadian system is fair game as well. But like you said, you have your system, and we have ours. Having multiple parties can be just as bad as only having two.
wait what the fuck...
Questioning why a westerner would want to commit an act of terrorism makes someone a moran? I know you want to scream it's because he's muslim, but you know, some people actually want to understand why he did what he did. It's the exact same reason why we ask why Dylan Roof shot up the Church, or why James Holmes did what he did. It's basic criminology and if you can understand the causes then you can fight terrorism at the cause and not just after the fact and without sacrificing liberties like privacy, like the FBI is currently trying to do with Apple.
Trudeau has been PM for a few months, you want to gauge how someone can run a country with a few months experience???
.MASSHOLE.Let me finish that quote for you. Base is the same. It is not going to be what he predicts it will. I personally believe it will fall higher, and it seems a lot of well-known economists agree. Only one outside of Bernie's camp has seemingly agreed with his figures.
well Bernie can easily manage a single payer health care system and free college. It's been succesfully done in many other countries. But like the photo down below, how come when it comes to health and education, we suddenly can't afford it, but come a war which doesn't need to be fought well hey let's just put that on the credit card. Because what's 400 billion on failed jets anyways? But oh no, college is too expensive at 75 billion...
CampeadorCertainly, and it's worth noting that I didn't use the plural "morons", I reserved it for one person in particular, Justin Trudeau. And even if you support the guy, it's difficult to say that he is not a moron, who just happened to have the right father for Canadian politics. Not a moron because I disagree with him, but just an actual moron. Listening to the guy speak is just painful.
You absolutely can not implicitly call Trudeau a moron. That is engaging in the hollow politics of those who choose to live within a tiny bubble and not engage in intelligent listening and discussion of others.
Trudeau is just one guy. Our Prime Minister has nowhere near the power that a President does (Note: I just assume a President has loads of power) and what their party stands for is much more important than who the specific candidate is. Also remember, he is much more left than your average American would be used to - but this is standard in our country. So to a republican-leaning American... most of what he and his party stands for is going to seem crazy.
I happen to very much like listening to Trudeau speak. I agree with a lot of what he says and what the party stands for. I also am willing to hear the conservative side of things and on certain fiscal issues cede leftest tenancies for what makes sense in the economy. I only ask for the same compromise on social support issues from the other side... and we do manage to get that in our country.
You're responding to all of this as what I seem to interpret as a slightly closed-minded right leaning political person. If you want to do that, then fine we just aren't going to agree on anything and this conversation is totally pointless... and lets just stop. You're right, I'm wrong and there we go. America is awesome and you guys rule - republican as fuck is the only way to go in America and I'll just stay in Canada.
If you want to open up, then lets keep this discussion going because its interesting.
Mr.BishopYou're responding to all of this as what I seem to interpret as a slightly closed-minded right leaning political person. If you want to do that, then fine we just aren't going to agree on anything and this conversation is totally pointless... and lets just stop. You're right, I'm wrong and there we go. America is awesome and you guys rule - republican as fuck is the only way to go in America and I'll just stay in Canada.
If you want to open up, then lets keep this discussion going because its interesting.
Story of this thread...on both sides. When entrenched, arguments become thoughtless and robotic and discussion becomes impossible.
mirozStory of this thread...on both sides. When entrenched, arguments become thoughtless and robotic and discussion becomes impossible.
Story of politics in general. In the end a true democracy is a compromise... so when we get caught up in partisan bullshit realistically the country loses in the end.
As a matter of fact, if you believe that your side is the only side, you should be fascist, not into democracy.
Mr.BishopStory of politics in general. In the end a true democracy is a compromise... so when we get caught up in partisan bullshit realistically the country loses in the end.
As a matter of fact, if you believe that your side is the only side, you should be fascist, not into democracy.
this current presidential race is really bringing the flaws of the party system to light. so much focus is being given to sanders and trump/cruz, both on extreme ends of the political spectrum, that legitimate moderate candidates are getting no air time. yes, there are republicans out there that aren't religious nuts who want to kick out all minorities, and yes, there are democrats out there that aren't trying to tax anyone who makes money out the ass and give everyone everything for free
